Does the Constitution give States the right to regulate guns?

[TNHarley]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

 

[DarkFury]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

No it does not. If you read the 2a you will see not only were they not granted that right government is not granted that right. There is no provision granting government the right to have or posses a weapon.

 

[MisterBeale]

Government bureaucrats will do what ever they must to control us. They will even have their elites in the courts tell us how they interpret the 2nd Amendment so that, eventually, they will take them away.

It doesn't matter, the 2nd was put there to guarantee one thing, so that the people would have the ability, and be guaranteed that protection against the government.

It is up to you whether you let them make you believe otherwise.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

And on the other side of the coin, recall the first words of the BOR - "Congress shall make no law ...". It applies to the whole document.

States must abide by the Constitution, and rights guaranteed by it cannot be altered without the mandated process i.e. amendments.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

The second amendment doesn't preclude regulation altogether. But neither does regulatory power mean that the government can strip down the right to bear arms to the kind of superficial in-name-only environment that liberals want.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

The 2nd Amendment was not a grant of rights, nor did it require militia organization. All it did was to keep the power to pass laws regarding arms away from Congress and reserve that power to the States.

The 2nd Amendment limited federal authority. Nothing more.

Now, however, it is all fucked up. The necessary but flawed nature of the 14th Amendment, the unchecked actions of Congress in the 1930s and beyond, and decades of appointments of undisciplined Supreme Court justices or justices openly hostile to the plain language of the constitution, all have worked to muddy the waters to the point where the power is unclear.

Scalia, in my opinion, fucked up in Heller. He was afraid to do the right thing and declare all fed gun laws uncostitutional, which would have made clear the power reserved by states, but the potential political and public unrest caused by such a decision pressured him to work a draconian meld of state and federal power without adressing the interaction of the 2nd Amendment with privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

In sum, it is all fucked up, and those in power do not give a rat fuck. The ultimate goal is to rid us of our natural, preexisting right. That is the only logical conclusion. Those in power want us helpless and powerless, so they don't give a shit.

 

[TNHarley]

The second amendment doesn't preclude regulation altogether. .

Why doesnt it?

 

[TNHarley]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

The 2nd Amendment was not a grant of rights, nor did it require militia organization. All it did was to keep the power to pass laws regarding arms away from Congress and reserve that power to the States.

The 2nd Amendment limited federal authority. Nothing more.

Now, however, it is all fucked up. The necessary but flawed nature of the 14th Amendment, the unchecked actions of Congress in the 1930s and beyond, and decades of appointments of undisciplined Supreme Court justices or justices openly hostile to the plain language of the constitution, all have worked to muddy the waters to the point where the power is unclear.

Scalia, in my opinion, fucked up in Heller. He was afraid to do the right thing and declare all fed gun laws uncostitutional, which would have made clear the power reserved by states, but the potential political and public unrest caused by such a decision pressured him to work a draconian meld of state and federal power without adressing the interaction of the 2nd Amendment with privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

In sum, it is all fucked up, and those in power do not give a rat fuck. The ultimate goal is to rid us of our natural, preexisting right. That is the only logical conclusion. Those in power want us helpless and powerless, so they don't give a shit.

So that mean Arizona has the constitutional authority to ban words or religions? To ban govt dissent?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So that mean Arizona has the constitutional authority to ban words or relig

No. That is unconstitutional, through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[TNHarley]

I just dont understand that.

 

[Pete7469]

I would say that from everything I've ever learned the Bill of Rights can not be undermined by any state or local government and it would take a new amendment to alter or eliminate another amendment.

Someone smarter than me can probably come up with something more concrete.

 

[TNHarley]

I would say that from everything I've ever learned the Bill of Rights can not be undermined by any state or local government and it would take a new amendment to alter or eliminate another amendment.

Someone smarter than me can probably come up with something more concrete.

That was my thinking. I understand the Constitution is a limit on the fed gov but i thought certain rights mentioned were inalienable

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I just dont understand that.

Sorry. I am being unclear. Multitasking.


The 14th Amendment fucked everything up (for better or worse).

States have their own constitutions which guarantee certain inalienable rights to their citizens, just as the Constitution does. The 14th Amendment requires this:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Shouldn't the States be forced to give all citizens liberty (right to bear arms) or forced to make no law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities?

It has never been clearly extended to the right to bear arms, to my knowledge.

See how fucked up it has become? What can states do? No SCOTUS holding has made it clear.

 

[TNHarley]

I just dont understand that.

Sorry. I am being unclear. Multitasking.


The 14th Amendment fucked everything up (for better or worse).

States have their own constitutions which guarantee certain inalienable rights to their citizens, just as the Constitution does. The 14th Amendment requires this:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Shouldn't the States be forced to give all citizens liberty (right to bear arms) or forced to make no law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities?

It has never been clearly extended to the right to bear arms, to my knowledge.

See how fucked up it has become? What can states do? No SCOTUS holding has made it clear.

IMO, it shouldnt have to be extended... The Constitution is quite clear.
Just read the fucking thing and give me my goddamn machine gun, fascists!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Simply put, the supremacy clause obligates the states to the Constitution. Therefore, the states are subject to the same limitations placed upon the federal government.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

 

[TNHarley]

When i started this thread, i assumed it was because of the commerce clause.. Which is easily debunked IMO

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Simply put, the supremacy clause obligates the states to the Constitution. Therefore, the states are subject to the same limitations placed upon the federal government.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

But, the 14th Amendment is so damn clumsy that it is still unclear how it affects State power.

A state cannot deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property without due process, but shall make no law that abridges the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens (meaning citizens of other states). So far, to my knowledge, the Court has not extended the right to keep and bear under P & I, as a right possessed by virtue of U.S. Citizenship (which it should). The Slaughter-House Cases and others only extended the right to access to seaports and navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of government, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the right to participate in the government's administration, etc.

The only time P & I came close to being extended under the right to keep and bear arms came from Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, where he stated that he reached his decision based on P & I, but concurring opinions are not controlling.

Scalia and the others had the power to extend the right in Heller and/or to declare the power reserved to the states. They are too afraid to shit or get off the pot. It's frustrating.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When i started this thread, i assumed it was because of the commerce clause.. Which is easily debunked IMO

Make no mistake. If the commies had no other avenue to fuck over our rights, they would twist the commerce clause to their will.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To sum up my prior posts in this thread....


MACHINE GUNS OR VALHALLA, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

 

[TNHarley]

When i started this thread, i assumed it was because of the commerce clause.. Which is easily debunked IMO

Make no mistake. If the commies had no other avenue to fuck over our rights, they would twist the commerce clause to their will.

Like banning flowers called pot.